I will let my opponent make the first actual argument and I will then, after my opponent has made their argument, go into much further detail on my own argument as well as addressing theirs. So, I leave it to any challenger to argue against my initial statements and my general argument.

After my opening statement I will address a few of his asterisks one by one. From lack of characters I will only adrress three asterisks this time around.
===============================================
HGE is the is the alteration of an individual's genotype and changing their phenotype to something different.When I look at what pro put down it seems like all of those things are amazing! Longer lives, no disease, everyone being smarter? This is amazing!I have to ask one question though.(If all of those things you said were true which I will argue against after this)Who would be receiving these treatments, and how would we know it would work? Logically, the bourgeoisie of our society would be the ones getting this.The prices for HGE are out of the roof and affordable prices for high middle class family's do not seem in sight for a century.So actually the people getting this would live longer, keep their corporatocracy's going longer, and have smarter,stronger, "better looking" kids to keep these going. This would thus further increase the elitist group of people.Also not trying to sound like a peta member all of this would be tested on animals.So I ask you Eccedustin.Do you support elitism, and cruelty to animals? If you do! Then I do not want to debate with you!

Increased lifespan-If HGE did increase human lifespan why would us as a society want that? Thousands of people are brain dead and have you ever heard of this? http://en.wikipedia.org...

Making humans happier-I know many kids who are made fun of for being gay,black, Mormon etc.So if I was a clone (or altered) I am certain I would be made fun of way more than anyone else.Also kids have trouble when they are adopted, and can not find their family.If I was a clone, and I didn't even have a family?I would have no real family and thus no reason to be happy.

At first, since as everything is economic, the rich people would be the first to try and use HGH (as they use HRT today more commonly). How would we know it works? We would know that it would work through scientific testing, lab testing, finally human testing. Etc. It would be a long process. Eventually everyone would be able to afford it as technology improves.

The upper class having exclusive rights to these technologies would last a few decades at most. Perhaps less.

I do not support cruelty to animals, but animal testing happens and it can prove very beneficial to humanity. Would I sacrifice some animals for humanity getting smarter and better off in the long run? Sure. Why? Because, the smarter we get the more we will understand animals and, in the long run, treat them better...

Overpopulation is a problem today purely because we, as humans, aren't smart enough to control ourselves and our reproductive abilities. We can't manage ourselves. With increased intelligence, this would no longer be a problem. Science has proven that higher I.Q. and education leads to less children, and having children later.

Would a child be picked on for being altered? I can't imagine how they would, since no one would even have to know. Moreover, in time, nearly everyone will have genetic alterations so it won't matter. I, for one, do not believe that we should refrain from using genetic therapy to cure depression, make people happy, make them live longer, healthier, etc. all because there is some chance some one might be made fun of somewhere. It seems nonsensical to me.

I don't know why you are bringing cloning into the issue. I never mentioned cloning.

So I just want to clarify that you do support elitists and animal cruelty, because the more you keep typing it is clarifying it more.
"The upper class having exclusive rights to these technologies would last a few decades at most"
From what that is saying the rich people of society will have a bigger advantage not through hard work, but through them having more money, and then their kids will have advantages over other kids, who's family are less wealthy than theirs. I live in a low middle class household and if kids in my class are becoming smarter because daddy is a doctor is that fair? If what you say is true about it trickling down to upper middle class people then this will thus create a bigger class gap and increase poverty.Just because some kids parents can afford for him to be smarter means he can out do his peers with an unfair advantage. I thought the roots of Capitalism is hard work. Not just if your parents are rich and will pay. This all just showing that you are like mentioned before are an elitist. It sounds like you do not support America either! Who am I debating? A elitist, animal hater, speciest, communist?!

So from what you said I really can not see how you do not support animal cruelty? Its better off in the "long run" for animals? Do you Eccedustin not understand an animal?That they are an organism just like US.Non human animals experience sensations just like we do. They too are strong,intelligent, and evolutionary. They to are capable of adaptation, and can not adapt in a cage just so they can be experimented on because we are to ignorant to solve our problems that WE created. Not them. How will pain and suffering benefit animals? The more HGE develops the more tests need to be done. Proving that more animals will be needed thus proving that "in the long run" is not true and you support animal cruelty. It seems you are a typical speciest willing to hurt anything just so you can "look better"
I will be waiting for your stuck up response

Any technology that comes up will come up through the basic process of capitalism. If you look at technologies in the past, all of them were exclusively for the rich. This, however, does not last long. Cars, Computers, Refrigerators, etc. We've all got them now, even the lower class for the most part. The same would be true of Genetic engineering. The technology would, over time, become available to EVERYONE. So I do not believe that the argument is relevant or valid.

I understand and agree with you that animals, beside us humans, have feelings and emotions. That is not the issue here. The issue is that most animal cruelty is not the result of experiments from scientists but rather from ignorant people who abuse animals because they are to stupid to know any better. With increased intelligence, people will know about animals more and be empathetic towards them more. So, in the long run, it would greatly benefit animal kind.

If you look at it another way, Humans could easily become vegetarians with genetic engineering. Removing any possible side effects from purely Vegetarian diets (if there are any) would result in even less animal cruelty.

It is pretty obvious from previous statements you at least support animal cruelty which is ok, I understand

The thing about cars, computers, refrigerators, you can mass produce them. Can you train as many HGE surgeons as X-ray technicians in the next fifty years when we barely understand it right now? Logically lower class, non high school graduates can make cars, but not perform gene transplants. Which means that a whole new branch of schooling is going to be created just to support that. Chemo therapy can cost up to 30,000 dollars for just one session? Not many even lower upper class can afford that. Insurance wouldn't even cover it like it does for most things.

Those ignorant people are the scientists. Please watch that video.

Do you want that happening just so you can look better? Just so that we can solve the problems WE created? I really have no idea what you are talking about when you say "increased intelligence about animals." Native Americans or the first hieroglyphics were of animals. In ancient Mesopotamia they treated animals way better than we do now? Or the Native Americans doing ceremony's for all the animals they killed? Did they not understand animals? Have we just become more ignorant? In your last statement you said "that animals, beside us humans, have feelings and emotions." So that means animals are almost like us? Really I see no logic in "increasing our intelligence" will help us treat animals better. We will want more,build more, need more, kill more because we want to know how to make money!

Vegetarians live approximately seven years longer than people on a vegetarian diet. So no we would find ways to make meat better for us and thus eat more animals.

Con, you are being dishonest. I do NOT support animal cruelty and I have said that already many times.

I think that HGH won't require surgeons as much as a single injection in the future. We would be able to mass produce that as well, or better, as we can mass produce anti viruses, etc.

Historically ALL technology has become more available and cheaper as time goes by. Chemo therapy will beocme cheaper and more available in the future as well.

Your arguments are nonsensical. You say that because Genetic engineering might be excluded from the lower classes at first, it is a bad idea to produce it? That is equal to saying that because Cancer therapy will be excluded from the lower classes at first, we shouldn't pursue it. It is a bad argument pure and simple.

Most of the genetic problems that exist today are not problems that "we created". Aging, disease, death, all have always existed. Moreover, even if "we" are the problem then genetic engineering could be the solution to that as well since it could change who "we" are inherently.

Did the native Americans or Mesopotamians treat animals better than we do today? Of course not. Native Americans ate Dogs, horses, etc. commonly. And in no culture in the past did they ever have all of the laws protecting animals that we have today. How many animal rights laws did Mesopotamians have?

I argue that higher intelligence would equal better treatment of animals. I argue this because most of the animal abuse that we see today is done by uneducated ignorant people.

Certainly, there are examples of scientists mistreating animals. However, on average, Scientists are very careful to reduce suffering when they do experiments on animals.

I personally do not believe that animal testing should be done unless totally necessary.

Also, with a higher I.Q. we could easily find ways to "produce" meat without even killing animals. It is all possible, we just can't do it yet.

First to defer my opponents claim I will use a quotes from the last round first.
". I do NOT support animal cruelty "
"I personally do not believe that animal testing should be done unless totally necessary"
Then why did you say this in round two?
" Would I sacrifice some animals for humanity getting smarter and better off in the long run? Sure."
Am I missing something. You would kill animals to look better? Speciest

I have searched the whole HGE databases and none of these places say that HGE would be single injection? Does altering your genotype into a new phenotype sound like an easy thing? That you could get at your local Walgreen's, and walk out with a batman sticker?

No I think that things always start in the upper class, and work there way down like you have said numerous times. But, with HGE like I said it would create a bigger poverty gap. You said it would take a few decades to get to the middle class, well a generation is twenty five years. So three generations could pass before they had access to it while there richer peers look socially better, were smarter, so they could have a huggeeee advantage over the other classes. The rich would create bigger Corporatocracy's thus creating more $20 an hour jobs for all the non-hge now grown up humans to have.

Do you think HGE would stop wars? Do you think that changing my phenotype will stop me and everyone from being greedy? Are you serious? That if some fat guy gets a new phenotype he will say "screw McDonalds, lets eat SALAD!"

I have taken an Native American culture class in college and we spent four weeks, yes... Four weeks talking about animals and spiritual dances, ceremony's the would do for ONE bison? When was the last time you danced around and blessed, and ate every single piece of a whole animal? Nothing was wasting with them. Saying native Americans didn't treat animals well? They treated them better because they cherished, and loved them like brothers.

1. My opponent continues to attack me, claiming I am an "elitist" and that I support cruelty to animals. Neither are true. I am not an elitist because I do not support elitism. Rather, it is true elitists will benefit short term from (ALL) technological advances, this is no argument against them. In the long term they will be available to us all. Also, animal experiments go on and will go on regardless. Should people supporting drug research be labeled as supporting animal cruelty?

Absurd.

2. I do not know how or when or in what form HGE will take. I am not a futurist. All I am arguing is that it will invariably be a good thing, in the long run.

3. It is absurd to claim that only rich people will receive genetic therapy. There will no doubt be funds for people with diseases to get it, etc. Also, I'm sure people would be more than willing to improve their entire genome if it involves taking out a loan or something. It would be an investment.

4. Yes, Our genes determine so many things including how we interact with other people. Aggression, intelligence, empathy, rational thinking, etc. Even non genetic factors would quickly be changed once genes are altered.

5. So the Native Americans danced around and worshiped the Bison. This doesn't mean they didn't kill it. And the Bison holds a special distinction in Native American culture, especially certain areas. They didn't treat all animals like that either.

In summary, Genetic therapy would be a great thing for human kind. All of the bad things we humans have in us, aggression, stupidity, disease, illness, lack of empathy, etc. all have strong genetic components. Sure, Nurture has a lot to do with it but if we take care of the nature part then we are half way there. Moreover, If you closely examine them, all of Con's arguments fall apart. Con is arguing AGAINST scientific progress for empty and pointless reasons.

I am not attacking you?
If you actually get this far down the page then you know I have used valid arguments to show my opponent support animal cruelty and elitism.
Yes if you support institutions that perform cruelty upon animals then you support animal cruelty? You can't look at the big picture you have to look inside at the details.
" If you closely examine them, all of Con's arguments fall apart. Con is arguing AGAINST scientific progress for empty and pointless reasons."
Poverty gaps, animal cruelty, and elite advantages (Not just with better stuff) are empty right? Just POINTLESS! You know what? Screw all those animals in the labs. I am just going to sit around smoke cigars, hope for a promotion, and don't do anything to help another creature in my life. Humans aren't the only things that inhabit the earth you know that right? With increased intelligence comes more things needing to be built. You could say "We could learn to conserve more" yeah right. We will keep building, and testing on animals as long as there are people such as yourself around.

2. Then how can you even debate on this topic or make a reference to that in a debate. You are just bull shitting apparently.

3. Yes like all those funds that help all the people with cancer. If those "funds" were exist there wouldn't be people at home with stage four cancer when they could at least receive treatment.

4. So you are willing to go against nature (or god if you believe in a higher power) to be able to become more empathetic? Is that hard to love? Are you that big of a savage that you can't control yourself or can't learn things for yourself?

5. Yes, all animals that were killed were used fully. Of course if they killed a rat they didn't dance around it but, they would use it all.

In summary pro has the more civil debate here. I understand that we all want to be perfect, but why not take the cards we were dealt, and succeed. Cheaters never prosper.

I know I'm a bit (a lot) late to this, but I was browsing around and saw this debate and felt like something had to be said. First, I'd like to congratulate Eccedustin on his victory, which as clearly deserved; secondly, I'd like to give Whitewolf some pointers on how to better play out a debate.
1. Don't attack your opponent.
-It only makes you look stupid, since your opponent is not a valid source of information in ANY argument.
-Use your opponent against him-/herself: look at sources, find counter-arguments, poke holes without attacking his or her personal views
2. Avoid words like "Elitist."
-It shows a heavy bias against a certain group, which WILL undermine your argument.
-It can make people have a negative bias towards you. (While you might appeal to a minority of people EXACTLY like you, you WILL sound deranged to others.)
I hope Whitewolf will take these tips heavily, and will use them to better future arguments. Once again, congratulations Eccedustin for having valid arguments and not letting attacks on your morals get you down. (sorry again that this is WAY late, I just had to say something)

@ whitewolf... You need to go out in the woods and take a long hard look at what's there. There is not a single wild animal on this planet that would choose a human being before itself.... With that in mind you need to lay off about animal cruelty, otherwise you should get on the table and be the lab rat!

Eccedustin, will you have this debate again with me? I can at least promise to do a better job than WhiteWolf here...

I'm new here and want to test myself out :P So far, I've won 2 and lost 1 (though the one I lost was because I went on vacation and inevitably forfeited every round of it. I had it remade and I'm still contending it).